Thoughts from the interface of science, religion, law and culture

After spending several years touring the country as a stand up comedian, Ed Brayton tired of explaining his jokes to small groups of dazed illiterates and turned to writing as the most common outlet for the voices in his head. He has appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show and the Thom Hartmann Show, and is almost certain that he is the only person ever to make fun of Chuck Norris on C-SPAN.

EVENTS

Abramoff: SCOTUS Doesn’t Understand How Money Corrupts

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s latest blow to any limits on campaign financing in this country, convicted felon and former lobbyist Jack Abramoff says the justices are naive and do not understand how the influence of big money corrupts our political system.

Former lobbyist Jack Abramoff disagrees with the Supreme Court’s April 2 ruling on campaign finance limits, which knocked down the limit donors can give to a political candidate.

“I don’t believe the [Supreme Court] Justices understand the connection between political money and corruption,” he told HuffPost Live’s Josh Zepps. “It seems that none of them were politicians and none of them were elected officials, so maybe they just don’t get it. To think that the conveying of money is not going to create a corrupt relationship, I think is naive at best.”

Speaking as a former lobbyist who knows the tricks of the trade when it comes to swaying a politician in his favor, Abramoff conceded, “The legislative effort that needs to ensue… is to say: if you’re a lobbyist or a special interest, you can’t give or you can only give a de minimis amount. I don’t think any other approach is going to work, at least through this Court, and I’m not certain anything else will work legislatively either.”

That won’t work either, nor will it pass. The only possible solution is a constitutional amendment, which is highly unlikely.

Comments

I’ll bet if we had national referendums, like so many states do, the people would be willing to pass such a restriction (though it’s not for certain, since big money would find a way to convince them that limiting corporate campaign contributions would lead to homosexuality, bestiality, promiscuity and feminism).

@#2: You beat me to it. I have absolutely no doubt that the conservatives on the USSC are entirely aware of what they are doing, are doing it on purpose, and at least in part for personal gain (although I do not discount ideology as a factor). The really ironic part is how pathetically small their reward will be, compared to the billions in ill-gotten gains their actions will have enabled their masters to acquire. At the least, you would think they would merit a Mediterranean villa and not just a couple of hunting junkets and a decent pension.

Well, we certainly can’t dispute Abramoff’s expertise in this matter, can we?

As for what can be done, I really think that this ruling is so clearly corrupt, and so clearly divorced from common sense, that it can be attacked and eroded, both by more legislation, and by vigorous defense of said legislation when the 1% challenge it. The LAST thing we should do is just shrug our shoulders and say “There’s nothing we can do about it.”

And no, a constitutional amendment won’t work either — even if we could get the overwhelming consensus needed to get it ratified, how would it have to be worded to get the right results?

Too late, Oligarchy and Plutocracy is the fate of US. I think we should just stop the general elections, and just let the oligarch and plutocrat choose their candidate. Let them conduct election within them. At least it would be honest. Why wasting peoples time and advertising false democracy ?

The only possible solution is a constitutional amendment, which is highly unlikely.

Or at least one more Associate Justice who doesn’t play with the current majority. Much as money is a “both sides do it” issue, there’s no question that it registers Republican. And all the respect for stare decisis in the world isn’t going to stop a later Court for reversing the Roberts Court’s reversals of long-established jurisprudence.

Especially Justice Scalia’s remarkable discovery that the Founders meant “quid pro quo” and nothing else when they referred to “corruption.”

And no, a constitutional amendment won’t work either — even if we could get the overwhelming consensus needed to get it ratified, how would it have to be worded to get the right results?

“No individual or corporation may make donations to state, local, or federal electoral candidates, or to organizations that support electoral candidates or measures, that exceed a total $5,000 per year in 2014 dollars.”

Though as a caveat to my @11 post, I think much more realistic options (to an amendment) would be:(1) appoint SC justices that will overturn the current ruling, and (2) tax the hell out of donations exceeding a certain amount. I just offer the amendment language in response to Bee’s question, not because I think an amendment has a snowball’s chance in hell of happening.

No individual or corporation may make donations to state, local, or federal electoral candidates, or to organizations that support electoral candidates or measures, that exceed a total $5,000 per year in 2014 dollars.

Wolf-Pac.com . They have ethical backers in politically powerful positions and they are gaining more support every day to get a constitutional amendment passed. Stop sitting around thinking of how hard it’ll be and actually put in the effort. TYT: Doing shit that actually makes a difference.

I have absolutely no doubt that the conservatives on the USSC are entirely aware of what they are doing, are doing it on purpose, and at least in part for personal gain (although I do not discount ideology as a factor).

Of course they know what they are doing. And it’s not for personal gain — it’s for the promotion of justice and the good of the nation, as SCOTUS Associate Justice Scalia explained in his essay on “God’s Justice and Ours”: “It is easy to see the hand of the Almighty behind rulers whose forebears, in the dim mists of history, were supposedly anointed by God, or who at least obtained their thrones in awful and unpredictable battles whose outcome was determined by the Lord of Hosts, that is, the Lord of Armies.”

Once you understand this, any good theist (or businessman) should be able to extrapolate to the understanding that in today’s society (where war can have deleterious effects on the markets), the amassing of wealth now serves as the best proxy measure for battles won, and so as evidence of Divine favor. Money is not just speech, but Divine Speech, provided like manna to those deserving to wield God’s Sword of Justice. May His will be done, Amen.

No, really. They may not frequently talk about it today (though John D. Rockefeller did), but that has long been part of the “logic” behind plutocratic oligarchy, and I would be very surprised if that were not the reasoning by which Scalia, and most of the other true believers on the Court, justify these decisions to themselves.

Unlike others here, I do greatly fear putting in the hands of the legislature control over restricting or limiting politicking. I still say that the court made the right decisions, by far.

Perhaps unlike others here, I feel the better solution is revamping the election system to something more sane than “winner take all single district”. Of course, I recognize that it has almost zero chance of passing realistically, but so do many of the other solutions in thread.

I would also be in favor of mandatory reporting laws. Guaranteed free speech is not the same thing as being guaranteed anonymity when purchasing large amounts of political ads.

Here’s a thought: how about no campaign contributions from anyone, to anyone? And no using your own money to fund your campaign, if you’re a candidate?

Instead, give all candidates a certain amount of guaranteed media time in which they could speak about their platform, and a certain amount of guaranteed funding to use for campaign stops and promotional materials. Equal funds for all, paid for from public coffers, and NO additional money allowed. PACs will not be allowed to campaign on behalf of candidates, and may only make “issue-based” statements.

Also, campaigns may only begin 60 days before the general election. For primaries, those will be scheduled 61 days before the general election, for all states, with no state allowed to hold its primary earlier than another. Primary campaigns may begin 60 days before the primary elections, giving the candidates enough time to get their messages out to the members of their party. Campaign funding will be equally paid for all primary candidates, separately from the general campaign funds.

And, finally, no keeping unspent campaign funds for future campaigns. If it wasn’t used, it has to be returned.

REALLY? Are you prepared to shell out $100,000,000 EVERY ELECTION CYCLE to get your opinions heard? Because that is at the low end of what Sheldon Adelson and the Kochs and other have each been doing and will continue to do. And that is just at the federal level. What will you do when a gaggle of fundie Christians are given $100,000 or more EACH to run for your state assembly, or even for your local school board?

I think your desire for political purity has blinded you to the reality we now live in. These guys are so beyond rich that you don’t even comprehend how much they can spend.

I believe that government is an inherently corrupt and corrupting matter. We do what we can to structure it to minimize corruption.

I believe handing the government a cart blanche to limit political speech for our betterment is insane. If the court decided any other way, that is what the powers of congress would be.

Now, perhaps we could accomplish this more safely via a very, very carefully worded amendment specifically designed for political campaigns and financing them. However, even that scares the crap out of me. You want to give the government the power to decide what is a contribution, what is not, what is political speech, what is an “issue speech” vs endorsement speech? Horrible, horrible ideas.

I don’t think my position is because of a desire for political purity or some such. I think that I’m a realist, and I find your idealism and naivete to be dangerous. I’m the one who knows enough that we should never trust the government with that kind of censoring power, at least not without a very, very carefully phrasing constitutional amendment.

Instead, I’d rather focus on IMHO better alternatives that get at the root problem instead of putting a band-aid on. I see campaign finance reform as a band-aid.

The root problems are an apathetic, ill-informed voting population who have become dogmatic in their choices. The ill-informed nature comes partly from their apathy. The apathy comes largely from being unable to choose a candidate which matches their preferences, and that comes from the “winner take all single district” system we have now.

I don’t mean to hero worship the founding fathers. I just happened to come to the same conclusions through independent investigation on this issue. The founding fathers were right that they did not want political factions, what we today might call political parties. They thought that political parties would polarize the population, and cause an “us-vs-them” mentality, and lead to demagogues, identifying along party lines irrationally, and so forth, exactly what we see today.

I think the solution is to break parties. Again, I don’t want a band-aid solution of outlawing political parties. Again, that sounds highly dangerous to give the government that power. I want to restructure our election system to kill political parties, and/or at least greatly divide and multiply the existing number of parties.

I think that is the solution. Doing that will allow people to vote for candidates which more closely match their preferences. That will alleviate some degree of apathy. That will reduce ignorance in the electorate to some extent as well.

How do we do that? Run-off voting if no majority candidate. Preferential voting. A system like the Israeli Knesset. I see lots of options. Our large district winner-take-all has got to be one of the worst approaches.

PS: Unfortunately, there is no clear-cut correct answer, because a non-trivial fair election system is impossible in the general case.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem
The best we can do is approximate fair for our particular situation. I would think any of the above options are almost strictly better in our situation than “winner take all”.

I would also be in favor of mandatory reporting laws. Guaranteed free speech is not the same thing as being guaranteed anonymity when purchasing large amounts of political ads.

Agreed. If money is political speech, then arguably we have a right to know who is making the political point. This might also reduce corporate contributions, because right now I think a lot of corporations donate to both GOP and DNC in order to be in good with the winners, no matter who that might be. Full disclosure eliminates the value of such double-gaming, reducing overall contribution amounts. This probably gives more dollar power to out-of-the-closet extremists like the Kochs, but then again, with their name attached to every advertisement they fund, their money might not be as influential.

@19:

Here’s a thought: how about no campaign contributions from anyone, to anyone? And no using your own money to fund your campaign, if you’re a candidate?

No, that’s bad. It would essentially restrict public office to those rich enough to fund their own campaigns. At that point the non-representativeness of democracy is no longer due to corruption, its due to the fact that every legislator belongs to the upper class and is wholly trusting to the continuation of their wealth and status in order to maintain their political position.

Unlike others here, I do greatly fear putting in the hands of the legislature control over restricting or limiting politicking. I still say that the court made the right decisions, by far.

I also agree that Citizens United was decided correctly.

I am becoming more and more impressed with your ability to see past simplistic ideological talking points and make reasoned decisions.

Now, we just need to discuss the basics of radiative atmospheric physics and the failure of certain global circulation models, due to their inclusion of physically unsupported positive water vapor feed backs.

Addendum: Of course, while I almost hero worship the founding fathers, I also get to blame them for our fucked up election system. They totally should have seen the problems of “winner take all” coming. Perhaps it was different in the days of snail mail only, no TV, and smaller districts, but times have changed, and it’s time to change the constitution to change our election system.

I get the nagging feeling that the US is going to get a massive object lesson on why allowing money/ business/ oligarchs run everything exactly as they please and without adult supervision is bad. The GOP is set to take over the senate and have a strong majority in the congress. Combined with a conservative majority in the SCOTUS and most judges it looks like the gates to the public lands, coffers, and laws will all be open to plunder by the oligarchs, the god botherers, and the worse of the unreconstructed bigots and confederates. I’m expecting that short of the Dems hanging onto the presidency, and a lot of fancy footwork by the minority party to uphold vetoes we might see the New Deal, civil rights, and pretty much all regulations rolled back. We may see a new gilded age with new and improved surveillance and police.

The good news: Historically such excesses lead to well publicized abuses, widespread outrage, protests, reform and the public demanding reform. This sort of response to conservative excess is how we got most of the liberal reforms and rights to start with.

Then there is the bad news: Given the concentration of wealth, power, media tracking and surveillance systems that would make the Stazi green with envy we may not be able to swing the pendulum back. There is a good chance that the excesses will not get reported and any organized moment to demand reform may get sidetracked and/or labelled terrorists.

@26 You don’t need an amendment to change the electoral process. You can do it just by 270 electoral votes deciding to vote with the popular vote victor (165/270 so far): http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

Yes of course we should have campaign limits. It’s anti-democratic to have a money election before the real election. We merely get a choice between two corrupt parties, because before they run they have to fundraise and whoever fundraises the most wins. I like the idea of extreme limits, like $100 or less, so that candidates have to rely on aggregate money. It would actually encourage them to represent the people rather than just moneyed interests like they do now.

And… handing the power of the censor to the rich people is going to help us how?

You really don’t understand how this recent ruling did just that? You really don’t understand how removing all limits on campaign spending gives the rich the power to out-shout and censor everyone else? After one of those corrupt lobbyists confessed and explained how the scam works?! Congratulations, EL, you just dug yourself into a new depth of stoopid.

I believe handing the government a cart blanche to limit political speech for our betterment is insane.

You “think” wrongly. All you’re doing here is spouting incoherent blather-points that you heard before, with no clear idea what you’re talking about.

The root problems are an apathetic, ill-informed voting population who have become dogmatic in their choices. The ill-informed nature comes partly from their apathy. The apathy comes largely from being unable to choose a candidate which matches their preferences, and that comes from the “winner take all single district” system we have now.

And you really believe that limitless spending by the rich to further skew this process and buy off all of our information outlets has no additional ill effect? I stand in awe of your unshakable idiocy.

I think the solution is to break parties.

Again, you “think” wrongly — and campaign spending laws have nothing at all to do with “breaking parties.”

Again, I don’t want a band-aid solution of outlawing political parties.

Who the fuck is advocating anything like that? Are you sure you posted your comment on the right thread?

I want to restructure our election system to kill political parties, and/or at least greatly divide and multiply the existing number of parties.

In other words, you want to keep the people so hopelessly divided that we can never get anything done. If that’s your ideal society, then fuck off to Somalia.

I thought that the asshole who signs as “enlightenment liberal” was just a shill for the nuclear power industry. I see now that he’s more likely a shill for ALEC, you know, the nice big business “grassroots” organization that wants to “give something back”? The “something” that they want to give us is the middle 19th century, the era of the “Golden Rule” when the people with the gold made ALL the rules. A time when the little people solved things with their gunz, unless it got too disruptive of the business cycle, in which case the REAL MurKKKans welcomed “gummint” help in the form of local, county or state police–and when things REALLY went south, some federal troops.

“Englightenment liberal”; is that the new labeling that you teabaggists are giving yourselves? I used to have them tell me that they were “Classical Liberals” (which they and you are not). You seem to be one of those rule of law guys, as long as the law that rules is property ownership.

“I’m the one who knows enough that we should never trust the government with that kind of censoring power,”

Why not just the “Royal, “We””?, you’re pretty much there already. You KNOW that the gummint can’t be trusted and you KNOW it better than anyone else here might KNOW it?

” They totally should have seen the problems of “winner take all” coming. Perhaps it was different in the days of snail mail only, no TV, and smaller districts, but times have changed, and it’s time to change the constitution to change our election system.”

Oh? The founding fathers should have foreseen the need for election engineering that fits YOUR ideal, but not have seen the need to actually keep KKKrazzeepants moftherfucKKK3ers from having enough weaponry and ammunition (and some ordnance, to boot) to take on and overwhelm local and state police agencies when they don’t like the tax bill or the way the skuels are being run? Right, selective clairvoyance is what you’re lookin’ for. Like regular clairvoyance it does not exist. And when, exactly did you become a supporter of the “Dump the ‘Winner takes all’ election process”? Sometime around November 7, 2008? That would be my guess because the GOP was thrilled with the idea until it bit them in the ass.

I’m all for giving any corporation that pays their taxes (especially the ones that they currently dodge by offshoring and playing corporate shell games with the IRS), and whose major stockholders and top management are LIABLE for the costs of fixing the problems that their companies create and, currently, manage to externalize and let the public weal pick up the bill.

Federal funding of elections is already a reality. It’s a fucked-up, half-hearted imitation of what it could be if the FEC and the Congress would take the time and hac the balls to fix it. But we ALREADY have election financing by the government. It’s just nowhere nearly as partisan as the GOP would like it to be.

ProTip:

Having Lancifurious for a fanboing*, on this blog? = FAIL, Considering your take on power generation you should be a staunch proponent of the AGW model that Lancifurious considers just so much “hot air”**, that will get him off your bandwagon faster than Carrie Nation could kill a “Happy Hour”.

The SCotUS was 5/9ths full of shit on both Citizens United and McCutcheon. When corporations have the same duties and responsibilities as humans they will become “people” in my book.

If I have a choice between trusting the gummint and the rich fuckz who are pretty much on record as wanting to eliminate it, I’ll have to go with the devil I know.

Now, trot on back to your handlers and tell them that you’ve been busted.

@dingojack;

Three words:
Federal Electoral Commission.
Dingo

dingo, three more words, “He’s a troll”.

* The sound his erection makes when he thinks about the dozens of scientists who support HIS model.

** He prefers the explanations proffered by the B’n’PF*** scientisters who bravely continue to spout idiocy because CORPORATIONS pay them to lie–or, maybe, they’re just fucking moronz.

EnlightenmentLiberal – Well since you asked – here‘s what they say about themselves*.
No, No need to thank me.
Dingo
——–
* I’m sure Canada, England and other places have something similar. A nice little research project for you. Report back to us real soon.

Hm. I wonder if this judicial blindness is in part an unexpected by-product of the Founders’ deliberate attempt to insulate the judiciary from politics?

Another possible factor is that the court also has a historically low level of elected politicians on it. Earl Warren was the last elected to statewide office, and Sandra Day O’Connor was the last to have been elected at any level. Maybe too many lack practical experience in the problem?

Considering that all of the current justices were put on the SCotUS bench (or is it a comfy chair?) after debates that featured bitter partisan attacks by whichever party was opposed to them, they can’t not GET that politics are bitter and divisive. They also can’t not GET that the party that pushed so hard to have the current five reactionary reptilicans is flush with cash and willing to spend it in order to get what they want. Well, I mean it’s possible that they don’t get it. If that’s the case, though, I don’t want them deciding what they should have for lunch never mind what is or isn’t constitutionally correct in law.

lancifer: Now, we just need to discuss the basics of radiative atmospheric physics and the failure of certain global circulation models, due to their inclusion of physically unsupported positive water vapor feed backs.
.
Glad you brought that up…
Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

Where the Earth would warm:
a. The night more than the day.
b. The winter more than the summer.
c. The poles more than the equator, with the Arctic faster than the Antarctic.
.
The atmospheric changes:
a. The Hadley cells would expand.
b. The troposphere would warm while the stratosphere would cool.
c. Storm tracks would move poleward.
d. The troposphere would expand and the effective radiating altitude with it.
.
Water vapor effects:
a. increased water vapor in the tropics (higher temps -> more evaporation and higher moisture retention in the air)
b. This water vapor would more often have a clear sky (no condensation) producing stronger greenhouse effects.
c. Higher global humidity would become the new normal.
d. ENSO would lead to water vapor feedback
.
Oceanic changes:
a. Increased acidity
b. Increase in coastal upwelling of ocean water.
c. Sea Level rise
.
Random events:
a. Cooling effect of Pinatubo would be magnitude (0.3K) and a duration (2 years).
.
Glad I could clear that up for you.

From what I’ve seen thus far, Lancifer and I agree on way more than you and I do. To dredge up other topics: As I recall, 1- you refuse to have a conversation about what is a proper formalized epistemology, 2- you think that censorship would have stopped the Nazis from coming to power, 3- and now you think that a SCOTUS decision explicitly contra the first amendment would be a good idea. I can’t remember the last time we actually agreed on anything.

More seriously, EnlightenmentLiberal, most democracies have limits on campaign spending, yet have somehow not become tyrannies in which political speech is arbitrarily restricted.

And as I said, I’m open to it with a very carefully worded amendment to that effect, not a ruling by the court which more or less guts the first amendment. That’s not hyperbole. If anything at all, the first amendment should protect political speech. If SCOTUS came along and decided that this one abridgment is in the interests of the people, what’s to stop them from taking the next step and outlawing neo-nazi hate speech? The same rationale would apply AFAIK. I think you would like that very much. I think it’s a miserable idea. There is no way for SCOTUS to make a limited ruling, because any ruling they make to allow government censorship of political speech would be invented out of thin air, and so there’s no reason they couldn’t invent another rule out of thin air.

@doublereed
I still think that removing no-runoff winner-take-all is better. Your way at least gets rid of the defunct electorial college, but it leaves in place winner-take-all no-runoff.

@Raging Bee
I explained my position. I fear more putting the unlimited power of the censor in the hands of the rich than allowing unlimited TV ads. A specifically tailored amendment is one thing. An asspull decision from SCOTUS is another. You also didn’t engage with my other ideas and whether you like them or not, instead attacking the man instead of the idea. That’s called ad hom.

@democommie
You’re the one living in a willful delusion, unable to admit by the track record that nuclear power is the safest and cleanest source of energy generation.

@dingojack
I fail to see how any of those “powers” help anything? So, they monitor and run elections, which would help if voter fraud were a real issue in the US (it’s not). They can help with education campaigns. That might be a little nice, I guess? Voter redistricting – now we’re talking. That would be a little useful for the US, but IMHO a minor issue compared to our bigger problems.

What do you see there which you think would help the US problem of unlimited money buying lots of ads?

@democommie
I’ve found several stats from independent sources and posted them earlier. Find me one legitimate source that shows more people have died from nuclear power than from other power sources – including Chernobyl even – and I’ll eat my hat. Protip: numbers based on LNT are bullshit. And… go! Protip: It better include the full supply chain, including mining, manufacture, installation, operation, and decommissioning. Go ahead, I’m waiting.

You want to argue that bullshit, go back to the previous thread, asshole, it’s still open.

I doubt that this thread is where people want to see it. Otoh, your citations are from cherry picked data, so you’ll get the same response you got there. Go fuck yourself.

You’re as wrong on the SCotUS decisions re: campaign financing as you are on the other stuff, but because you’re a liberbaglican you think that telling people the same shit over and over will, magically, make it come true. Not gonna happen, asshole.

EnlightenmentLiberal – (Can I call you Libertard? t’s shorter).
I see your research effort was quick and shallow (how surprising). Go back and do it again, but properly this time. Oh by the way what did you find out about the systems put in place in other counties?
Get back with your (in depth) report soonest.
regards,
Dingo

1. I’m not the one who brought it [nuclear power safety] up first. If someone mentions it, I will respond.

2. dingojack. Stop being an asshat. I’ve done my research. You’re going to make at least a semblance of a point before saying “read a book”. I read your link, and it seems that the powers of the election commission will do nothing to help out on the problem under discussion – unrestricted campaign financing. It would be nice for controlling redistricting, but that’s not the topic under discussion.

3. Why the hell do you guys think I’m a libertarian? Because I support government aid of nuclear power? Because I am against government restrictions on free speech esp. political speech as guaranteed by the first amendment – except and unless when we get a carefully narrowly tailored amendment for campaign finance reform? Please. I’m a libertarian like Marx or Lenin was a libertarian. I fully support single payer (government) medicine, welfare, better cheaper public education, better regulation of wall street, more progressive taxation schemes, stupidly high estate taxes, and so forth. Don’t just bandy the word “libertarian” about if you don’t know what it means.

Given the track record of phonies like Christie and Spencer in cherry picking data, which was amply demonstrated a few weeks ago in a thread on this blog by myself and Michael Heath,they have no credibility and neither do you.

I would paraphrase Martin Gardner in his work on pseudoscience, Fads and Fallacies in Science: one who makes crackpot claims in branches of science outside his field of expertise (in Spencer’s case evolution and DDT), should have his claims in his field of expertise treated with great skepticism.

@lancifer
The hell am I even looking at in that graph? “90 climate models”? Which models? Does that include models from 20 years ago derived by kindergarten kids? The graph is entirely meaningless without a lot of additional data, such as “these 90 models represent the best and most widely accepted models of today according to scientific community consensus”. Otherwise, he could just be pulling them out of a hat, selectively choosing them to dishonestly make his point.

When presenting evidence, please do a little better, and try to include sources if you can. Also, try to avoid presenting evidence that half a second of examination shows is entirely consistent with dishonest fudging of numbers (such as by purposefully including only models which are higher than satellite numbers).

Oh, one other thing I want to bring up. One of the IMHO primary root causes of campaign financing problems is the great wealth disparity of today. You cannot have a functioning democracy when there are massive wealth disparities in the population. Massive wealth disparities are also unjustifiable morally. In other words, private property rights and especially inheritance rights of private property are not absolute, and should be violated to maintain a closer-to-equal wealth distribution among the population. (IIRC, several of the founders thought so too.)

This also attacks the problem of campaign finance reform indirectly, albeit effectively. I also like this plan for the many other obvious benefits. Heavy progressive taxation, and super heavy estate taxes – yes please.

It should be pointed out that not all large fortunes are inherited. For instance, Bill Gates came from a middle class background as did Larry Ellison and Michael Dell. They made their fortunes the old fashioned way, they earned it.

However, Bill went to Harvard on legacy and had a $1 million trust fund at the time (in the early 70s that was more than it is now.) His father is the “Gates” of “Preston, Gates, and Ellis” — one of the heavy hitters in the Washington lobbying circles until the Abramoff thing went down and the remainder of the firm decided the brand wasn’t worth salvage.

So, yeah, the family of a top-flight DC lobbyist from Harvard whose son inherits a megabuck trust fund from his grandfather is, indeed, “middle class.” For appropriate values of “middle class.”

A megabuck trust fund ain’t 50 billion dollars which is what ole Bill is currently worth.

No, but it makes nice seed money to hire people to code for you — which is how Bill got his start in business.

And the original point was “middle class background.” Which, in the USA, includes people who had megabuck trust funds in the early 70s and whose parents spent a lot of time dining with Senators. If not, then maybe that doesn’t describe Bill.

A great investigative piece would be to drill into CJ John Roberts factual assertions in his opinions, expose the veracity of his premises, and then put him under the spotlight of a tough interviewer who challenged his conclusions based on the premises Roberts used.

We’ve already seen how J. Antonin Scalia reacts to far milder scrutiny, he’s no better than a standard-issue libertarian/conservative denialist – an absurd buffoon. But Roberts is supposed to be smarter, and was supposed to come with some integrity. I’d pay to see that interview.

lancifer, my cite is no better than yours in terms of not being peer-reviewed. I’m merely pointing out how easy it is to put shit up in a comment post as you always do when it comes to the climate.

As always, I instead suggest citing linked facts from credible sources revealed by those climate scientists whose findings are validated by other climate scientists and whose explanations whether the storm of peer-review and are cited by other credible relevant climate scientists. As always, I’m confident you will remain impotent in meeting this standard, but will instead continue to link obscure and in this case, well-known wingnuts instead.

When a guy like you, who has no demonstrated expertise in a topi, but instead demonstrated ignorance, argues the opposite of a near-monolithic consensus amongst experts, where the only dissent is from known cranks and wingnuts who are easily exposed; well, you might want to pause and consider that you might be wrong. Yes you, that rather than thousands of well-educated, practicing, publishing scientists or as you call them, “alarmists”.

It would appear that Mr. Enliarment Libertard is gonna be pullin’ an “Isabel”, here. and his little dig at you @56 prolly means that you guys won’t be sending each other holiday greeting cards.

“1. I’m not the one who brought it [nuclear power safety] up first. If someone mentions it, I will respond.”

Wrong. You actually did bring it up first ALECboy. And you’re just as full of shit about it as you were before.

“3. Why the hell do you guys think I’m a libertarian? Because I support government aid of nuclear power?”

Um, I left my wingnutese decoder ring at home–wtf are you even saying here? Is it that you think libertarians don’t support gummint’ programs? If that’s your point, your even more of a fucking moron than you’ve proven to be on other matters. Or, are you saying you support gummint aid of nuclear power? If they need gummint aid I guess that they’re not as cheap and safe as you keep saying they are.

And we explained why it was wrong — when it wasn’t just an incoherent mashup of talking-points, that is.

I fear more putting the unlimited power of the censor in the hands of the rich…

As we already said, campaign-finance laws do absolutely nothing of the sort. Allowing the rich to buy up air-time, and drive the price up for everyone else, does do that. So if you really are opposed to “putting the unlimited power of the censor in the hands of the rich,” then you would support, not oppose, spending limits.

You also didn’t engage with my other ideas and whether you like them or not, instead attacking the man instead of the idea. That’s called ad hom.

Right or wrong, NOTHING in my comments were “ad hom.” You stated some stupid opinions, we pointed out how they were stupid, and now you’re flat-out lying about what I said.

@lancifer…[What] The hell am I even looking at in that graph? “90 climate models”? Which models? Does that include models from 20 years ago derived by kindergarten kids? The graph is entirely meaningless without a lot of additional data…

Oh dear, once again poor Lance fails at kissing ass as well as at making a convincing factual argument.

Actually, Gates and his cohorts got their start when IBM utilized MSDOS for their newly developed personal PC. If IBM had chosen another software package, it is unlikely that ole Bill would be worth anywhere near 50 billion dollars today.

Bill Gates is not a lot of things, compooter jeenyus is near the top of that list. Otoh, he is VERY good at selling stuff.

I am a bit surprised that there is no KKKonservative software mogul of Gate’s stature out there. Y’know someone who could con the Kochdudebros into ponyin’ up $40B or so to fund the eradication of Third World diseased and malnourished takerz!

Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.

I look at this and see it’s stunning simple-mindedeness and am reminded of Stormin’ Norman’s comment about Sadam Hussein’s military expertise:

“As far as Saddam Hussein being a great military strategist: He is neither a strategist, nor is he schooled in the operational art, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general, nor is he a soldier. Other than that, he’s a great military man.”

Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models.

Lance, that pathetic sliver of a quote you offer does NOT say that global warming isn’t happening, or that it isn’t caused by humans, or that it isn’t a serious problem for our environment. Also, note the word RECENT. What does that mean, exactly? Last year? Face the facts, Lance — you got nothing, and we all know it.

Then you make some nebulous appeal to authority as a kicker.

Yeah, the “authority” known as superior knowledge and experience, which makes Heath and his sources WAAAY more credible than your abysmally ignorant crap.

The graph clearly labels the models as the CMIP5 model set. These are the models used by the IPCC.

And do the scientists say that this is their best guess on the future? As far as I can tell, no. This is just a list of models which are of current theoretical interest and which are receiving work. Again, your graph is meaningless.

Again, I think it would have been far more damaging to our democracy for SCOTUS to hand congress a carte blanche to censor political speech whenever congress deems that the censoring would help the public interest. Horrible idea. And I fail to see how any SCOTUS decision could be properly limited in a way that a constitutional amendment could be.

Once again, Sir Lancelot falls to note that, increases in global temperatures are, indeed, small compared to 1998, which was the result of an unusually strong El Nino. In fact, many climate scientists are predicting an even stronger El Nino this year which might end up breaking all recorded temperature records set previously. As I understand it, climate models aren’t very good at predicting El Ninos.

The fact is that global warming denialism is being funded by the Koch brothers for the purpose of maintaining the value of their fossil fuel holdings. In addition, the Koch brothers are funding efforts to stifle solar energy. Sir Lancelot has gotten into bed with evil personified.

Again, I think it would have been far more damaging to our democracy for SCOTUS to hand congress a carte blanche to censor political speech…

And again, limits on spending are not censorship of political speech. I don’t know how to explain that any more simply. Can you cite even ONE instance of a zillionaire actually being unable to express his opinions because of campaign spending limits?

And do the scientists say that this is their best guess on the future? As far as I can tell, no. This is just a list of models which are of current theoretical interest and which are receiving work. Again, your graph is meaningless.

What? Of course they say that this is their “best guess”. It is the crux of the entire debate. With out these models there is absolutely no basis for concern.

What did you think the concerns of future dangerous warming were based on?

I find it somewhat ironic that Lancifurious, dubious of any gummint or gummint sponsored research into AGW/Climate change is now somewhat ecstatic over the issuance of a report by the Canadian gummint’s climate change people. It is understandable, since it TOTALLY vindicates his views and he’s right and all of the other poopy heads are wrong.

Well, fuck, that’s science, son, it’s how science works. Now we’ll have some other people look at their work and follow the same path they did to arrive at different conclusions.

Meantime, in the real world, desertification and other somewhat noticeable effects of climate change are occurring. Let’s just blame them on the people who live in those places effected and well, fuck them, anyway.

In the rosiest personal scenario that I can imagine, I won’t live long enough for AGW to kill me, directly but still, I see research on the subject to be of some benefit for the billions of people who won’t be lucky enough to die before the shit hits the fan.

I have been consistent in saying that I am a “lukewarmer”, that a doubling of anthropogenic CO2 will increase atmospheric temperatures by about 1 degree Celsius, but that current climate models have overly large water vapor feed backs that exaggerator the expected warming to “dangerous” levels.

So it is rather gratifying to see that more and more research is agreeing with my view of the evidence. There is nothing inconsistent about that.

Also your wrong that desertification is increasing, the truth is just the opposite is happening. Some of it as a direct result if increased CO2 levels.

So, you are completely accepting the positive spin from the article you like and completely ignoring that which doesn’t match your bias. Okeydokey, just wanted to be sure. Go back to being full of shit.

I must not read English all that well. I don’t see anything on that page which you say should be there.

It clearly spells out its purpose:

1) assessing the mechanisms responsible for model differences in poorly understood feedbacks associated with the carbon cycle and with clouds, 2) examining climate “predictability” and exploring the ability of models to predict climate on decadal time scales, and, more generally, 3) determining why similarly forced models produce a range of responses.

Again, I fail to see where it says that “These 90 models are our best guess for the future”. Come on. That alone should be a dead giveaway. How the fuck are 90 models their best guess? Their best guess would be a single model you dipshit, or maybe a range of models to describe best case to worst case, not 90 unsorted models.

It even has an italicized disclaimer for exactly this purpose:

CMIP5 is meant to provide a framework for coordinated climate change experiments for the next five years and thus includes simulations for assessment in the AR5 as well as others that extend beyond the AR5. CMIP5 is not, however, meant to be comprehensive; it cannot possibly include all the different model intercomparison activities that might be of value, and it is expected that various groups and interested parties will develop additional experiments that might build on and augment the experiments described here.

Here’s the important part:

CMIP5 is not, however, meant to be comprehensive; it cannot possibly include all the different model intercomparison activities that might be of value,

Come on man. Be honest, and use a modicum of critical thinking. Try to use numbers that actually mean something.

That alone should be a dead giveaway. How the fuck are 90 models their best guess? Their best guess would be a single model you dipshit, or maybe a range of models to describe best case to worst case, not 90 unsorted models.

Well, well, getting a bit testy I see. There is no one model “dipshit”. The CMIP5 models are the latest series of models designed to try to more accurately predict the climates response to CO2, among other forcings.

Why don’t you spend some time researching why the IPCC gives a range of temperatures and then find out where that range came from before you spout off about something you obviously don’t understand?

Of course you could just keep believing in catastrophic climate change on faith, as you do now. You can throw in the argument from authority if you like.

Neither one will be rational or valid, but hey, that will let you keep the answer that fits your political proclivities, and that is what’s really important.

Of course you could just keep believing in catastrophic climate change on faith, as you do now. You can throw in the argument from authority if you like.

Strawmann. Red herring diversion.

I am asking for an unambiguous quote that the scientists feel that this collection of 90 models is their best guess. Do they provide equal weight to all models? Seriously, your position is foolish. Again, citations please.

Why don’t you spend some time researching why the IPCC gives a range of temperatures and then find out where that range came from before you spout off about something you obviously don’t understand?

Citations please that their best guess of range of temperatures are based on these particular 90 models. Citations showing what relative weight they give to each of the 90 models.

I realize that you are in the midst of cognitive dissonance having realized, if only subconsciously at this point, that you have no scientific basis for accepting the whole anthropogenic climate change narrative (or climate disruption or whatever they are calling it these days).

You have demonstrated, in other threads, the ability to make judgements based on facts and reason and that is why I haven resisted the urge to tell you to fuck off.

The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is the latest IPCC report on climate change. Working Group One (WG1) is the group tasked with assessing the physical scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change.

Below is a section of the the AR5 WG1 report in regards to the models on which the whole enchilada is based. It is on page 3 of 84 in the section “Annex I: Atlas of Global and
Regional Climate Projections”

Equal Model Weighting:
Model evaluation uses a multitude of techniques (see Chapter 9) and there is no consensus in the community about how to use this information to assign likelihood to different model projections.

Consequently, the different CMIP5 models used for the projections in the Atlas are all considered to give equally likely projections in the sense of ‘one model, one vote’. Models with variations
in physical parameterization schemes are treated as distinct models.

This section clearly identifies the CMIP5 models as the climate models upon which the scientific assessment is based. And each CMIP5 model is considered “equally likely” to occur. So there is no “one model” on which they have based their projections.

The graph I provided shows that nearly all of these models have given estimates that do not agree with current actual measurements of atmospheric temperatures. This is no small failure. It is an indictment of the entire basis of the climate crisis narrative. If these models are wrong there is no physical basis for the claim that we must stop using fossil fuels, which happen to be the fuels that provide nearly 90% of the energy used by modern society.

There is no shame in being “ignorant” of a subject. I am ignorant of a great many scientific topics, the physics of climate is not one of them.

I hope you appreciate that I have provided the citations you have requested. I have spent years evaluating the scientific evidence. It is my honest opinion, as a degreed scientist (physics) and college educator (mathematics), that the majority of empirical evidence points clearly to the conclusion that we face no dire threat from climate change due to anthropogenic CO2.

I may be wrong, but I refuse to let my political proclivities or personal biases cloud my view of the scientific evidence. And I am open to any and all evidence that might point me to the truth, even if that truth is 180 degrees opposite of my current assessment of the topic.

Can you honestly say the same thing? Are you willing to accept an answer that might require you to say that you were wrong and that is opposite of what your political beliefs would prefer?

I have hope, based on other things you have said, that the answer to the above question is yes.

I didn’t “cherry pick ” anything. All of the CMIP5 models are currently running higher than actual temperatures.

And that is with, as you point out, higher than expected CO2 levels. Doesn’t that give you the slightest pause, or are your blinders on so tightly that you can’t admit that the fact that the data is not agreeing with the dire predictions of the doomsayers may be reason for doubt?

You claim to be a PhD educated physicist, but you actions are more in keeping with a religious “believer”.